OCR Text |
Show 1881.] INDIAN SPECIES OF MUS. 545 but I can find no difference of any importance between the Mice of Darjiling and Katmandu and those of Southern India. Of course, as might be expected, specimens from the hills have rather longer and softer fur and darker coloration thau those of the plains; but this is only a parallel case to that of Mus alexandrinus, which, as shown above, becomes redder and coarser-haired the further south it lives. With regard to the distinctness of M. urbanus from M. musculus, Blyth said that " M. musculus has conspicuously larger ears, much smaller eyes, broader paws, and the tail is one fourth shorter, measuring 3 inches in musculus and 4 in urbanus. The fur, again, is of very different texture." Now I am by no means so satisfied of the distinction of these two forms as Blyth seems to have been. M. urbanus, it is true, has on the average somewhat smaller ears ; but the difference is extremely small, and the measurements intergrade completely. The stated difference in the size of the eyes must have come solely from the manner of preservation of the specimens compared; probably Blyth's urbanus was fresh, while his musculus was in spirit, which would quite account for the difference. As to the lengths of the tail, 3 and 4 inches respectively, I can only say that I have never seen a spirit-specimen of urBanus with the tail more than 3*5 inches, the average being considerably less ; and many specimens of musculus have it from 3*2 to 3*4 inches ; so that we see that, as far as regards the more essential characters of the dimensions of the members, the two forms cannot possibly be separated. However, the fur in urBanus is always much shorter, and the colour much paler than in musculus; so that specimens can always be placed without difficulty under one or other heading; and therefore I provisionally retain M. urBanus as a good species, its most marked distinctive characters being its fawn or reddish coloration and its short crisp fur. I do not think it is necessary to discuss the names put as synonyms in detail: the types of all of them except M. tytleri are in the British Museum ; and I have not the smallest doubt in the case of any one of these. The type of Mus rama from Malacca is of quite the usual character, and might almost have belonged to the same litter as that of M. manei from Madras. With regard to M. tytleri, we have a specimen, also from the Dehra Doon, which fairly answers to Blyth's description, and which I assign to this species. It is the very palest specimen I have seen, quite as pale as M. Bactrianus ; but its belly is scarcely lighter than its back, while that of M. bactrianus in pure white. Moreover we have a similarly pale specimen from Calcutta. Dr. Anderson tells me that the type of M. tytleri is not in the Calcutta M u s e u m ; so that we have only Blyth's description to go upon ; I think, however, that I a m correct'in referring it to Mus urbanus. Mus suBlimis, W . Blanf.1, seems to be allied to thisspecies ; but without seeing specimens I cannot express any opinion as to its 1 Zool. Yarkand Exp., Mamm. p. 51, 1879. |